NJ Appellate Court Sends Harsh Message in Police Interpreter Case

April 22, 2018 - Posted by Larry E. Holtz

A NJ Appellate Court sends a harsh message to Departments that rely on police officer interpreters during custodial interrogations of non-English-speaking suspects. In State v. A.M. (App.Div. 2018), a grand jury indicted defendant A.M., charging him with aggravated sexual assault, endangering the welfare of a child, and related offenses. The victim was defendant’s step-granddaughter, who was fourteen years old at the time. In this appeal, the Appellate Division held that defendant’s incriminating statements should have been suppressed because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary decision to waive his Miranda rights.

Since defendant’s dominant language was Spanish, an officer by the name of Ramos acted as defendant’s interpreter. At the suppression hearing, the prosecutor asked Ramos to provide some of his background in the Spanish language.

The officer testified:

I grew up in a Spanish [speaking] household. Spanish was my first language spoken at home. I did study Spanish in high school, a couple courses and also in college.

Q. Have you been called upon by your police department in your capacity as a police officer to either help translate statements made in Spanish by witnesses or defendants or to provide a translation of Miranda rights in Spanish ever before? A. Yes.

Q. And so your department has asked you to do this kind of thing before? A. Yes.

Q. Again, how would you characterize roughly the number of times you've been called upon, rarely, often? A. Often.

On cross-examination, Officer Ramos was asked:

Q. You said that you have some familiarity with the Spanish language, correct? A. Yes.

Q. Have you ever taken a test to officially translate?A. No.

Q. So, for example, like we have two court interpreters here that have taken tests employed by the State. Have you ever done a proficiency test like that?A. No.

Q. Have you ever written anything like a police report or a letter, anything in Spanish?A. No.

* * *

Q. Have you ever testified as an interpreter before?A. No.

“The video record shows defendant appearing to read to himself the waiver part of the Miranda form that was written in Spanish. Officer Ramos acknowledged that he did not read the waiver paragraph in the Miranda form to defendant. Officer Ramos pointed to the sections in the waiver form and told defendant: ‘Write your name in the line -, complete. And you have to sign here, the line is not there, but you have to sign.’ ”

“Officer Ramos also testified that he paraphrased many of defendant’s answers to questions dealing directly with defendant’s alleged sexually inappropriate interactions with the victim.”

In this appeal, the court determined that the State did not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant made a “knowing and informed” decision to waive his rights under Miranda.” As a result, the court ordered that defendant’s incriminating statements be suppressed.

During the suppression hearing, Ramos “conceded that he: (1) did not ask defendant about his level of education; (2) did not make any efforts to determine whether defendant was literate in Spanish; (3) did not ask defendant to read the waiver provision out loud to create a video record of what defendant actually read; and (4) did not mention the word ‘waiver’ or any other word or phrase that has the same or similar meaning. He merely told defendant ‘to sign this [and] put his name in there[.]’ ”

Said the Court:

This case also illustrates the difference between knowing a foreign language and being able to accurately and competently interpret the critically important words spoken by a witness in the course of an interrogation. In response to the motion judge’s questions, Officer Ramos conceded that he merely “paraphrased” defendant’s statements. Officer Ramos candidly admitted that he: (1) has never tested to determine his ability to translate or assess his proficiency in Spanish; (2) has never written a police report or a letter in Spanish; (3) had never before been asked to interpret a Miranda interrogation; and (4) had never interpreted in a judicial proceeding. * * * The mere fact of having a Hispanic last name does not create a rational basis to infer anything about a person's linguistic abilities. Finally, and equally as important, both Officer Ramos and [ ] the clerk typist, are law enforcement employees. Neither is an impartial participant.

In his concurrence, Judge Fuentes added:

[There are] inherent constitutional flaws associated with relying on untrained, presumptively partial police officers to act as interpreters during custodial interrogations of limited English proficient suspects. In my view, [] Ramos’s role as defendant’s interpreter cast a shadow of unreliability over the interrogation and added an independent factor to question the efficacy of defendant’s waiver, as well as the accuracy of his alleged incriminating statements. * * *

[I]t is up to the Attorney General to develop appropriate guidelines to assist county prosecutors and municipal police departments on how to interrogate limited English proficient suspects to avoid the constitutional pitfalls identified in this case. Until this issue is addressed in a uniform manner befitting its importance, the constitutional right against self-incrimination of limited English proficient suspects remains dependent on how well untrained, presumptively partial individuals interpret the interrogators’ questions and the suspects’ responses.